APPLICATION/REQUÊTE N° 16278/90

Senay KARADUMAN vmJRKEY

Senay KARADUMAN c/TURQUIE

DECISION of 3 May 1993 on the admissibility of the apphcaUon

DÉCISION du 3 mai 1993 sur la recevabilité de la requête

Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention Thts provision primanly protects the

sphère of private, Personal beliefs, and not every act in the public sphère whtch is
dictated by such convictions

The term "practice" in this provision does not cover an act nhich does not directly
exptess a heltef, even though it is molivated or influenced bv n

The fact ihat a secular umversify has régulations on students' dress and thaï its
administrative services are subject to compliance M ith those régulations does not
constitute an interférence M ilh the right tofreedom of religion and belief In this case
refusai ofa Turkish university to issue a degree certificate to afemale student who, by
submitting for the certificate an identity photograph in whtch she is wearing a Muslim
headscarf, dtd not comply with university régulations prohibiting the wearing of such
a headscarf

Article 26 of the Convention

a) The exhaustion ofdomeslic remédies may take place after the introduction of an
application but musl hâve taken place before the Commission is called upon ta
décide on the admtssibihry

93
b) An appltcant must make normal use of those domestic remédies which are
apparently effective and sufftcient.

As the Turkish administrative courts can examine the lawfulness of an

administrative décision in an individual case, an applicant is not required m
addition to challenge the lawfulness ofthe administrative régulations on which the
décision was based

A request to the Turkish Council of State to reconsider a final judgment in which

it apphed estabtished case-law is not an effective remedy.

c) Domestic remédies hâve been exhausted if before the highest domestic body, the
applicant has submitted in substance his complaint before the Commission, even
without particular référence to the Convention.

Article 9, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Cette disposition protège en premier heu

ce qui relève du for intérieur et pas nécessairement tout comportement public dicté par
une conviction

N'est pas une «pratique» protégée par cette disposition un acte qui n'exprime pas
directement une conviction, quand bien même il est motivé ou inspiré par celle-ci

Ne constitue pas une ingérence dans le droit à la liberté de religion et de conscience

le fait, pour une université laïque, de réglementer la tenue vestimentaire des étudiants
et de subordonner les services de son administration au respect, par les étudiants, de
cette réglementation. En l'espèce, refus par une université turque de délivrer un
diplôme à une étudiante qui, en présentant pour ce diplôme une photographie d'identité
où elle porte le foulard islamique, ne respecte pas le règlement de l'université
interdisant le port d'un tel foulard

Article 26 de la Convention :

a) L'épuisement des voies de recours internes peut être réalisé après l'introduction de
la requête mais doit l'être avant que la Commission soit appelée à statuer sur la
recevabilité.

b) Un requérant doit avoir fait un usage normal des recours internes vraisemblable-
ment efficaces et suffisants.

Les juridictions administratives turques pouvant examiner la légalité d'un acte

administratif individuel, un requérant n'est pas tenu en outre d'invoquer l'illégalité
de l'acte administratif réglementaire dont il procède

Un recours en rectification d'arrêt contre un arrêt du Conseil d'Etat turc, rendu en

application de sa jurisprudence constante, n'est pas un recours efficace.

94
délivrance d'un diplôme, aussi longtemps qu'ils ne se conforment pas à ce règlement,
ne constituent pas en tant que tels une ingérence dans la liberté de religion et de
conscience

La Commission ne relève donc aucune ingérence dans le droit garanti par

l'article 9 par 1 de la ConvenUon II s'ensuit que cette partie de la requête est
manifestement mal fondée au sens de l'article 27 par 2 de la Convention

Par ailleurs, dans la mesure où la requérante se plaint d'une discnmination, quant

à la tenue vestimentaire dans les universités turques, entre les étudiantes de nationalité
étrangère et celles de nationalité turque, la Commission n'est pas appelée à se
prononcer sur le point de savoir si les faits allégués par la requérante révèlent
l'apparence d'une violation de cette disposition. En effet, aux termes de l'article 26 de
la Convention, «la Commission ne peut être saisie qu'après l'épuisement des voies de
recours internes».

Cette condition ne se trouve pas réalisée par le seul fait que la requérante a
soumis son cas aux différents tribunaux compétents 11 faut encore que le gnef formulé
devant la Commission ait été soulevé, au moins en substance, pendant la procédure en
question Sur ce point, la Commission renvoie à sa junsprudence constante (cf., par
exemple, No 5574/72. déc 21 3 75, D R 3 pp 10. 22 ; No 10307/83, déc 6 3 84,
DR 37 pp 113. 127)

En l'espèce, la requérante n'a pas soulevé au cours de la procédure devant le

Conseil d'Etat ce grief précis dont elle se plaint maintenant devant la Commission De
plus, l'examen de l'affaire n'a permis de déceler aucune circonstance particulière qui
aurait pu dispenser la requérante de soulever ce grief dans la procédure susmentionnée

Il s'ensuit que la requérante n'a pas satisfait à la condition relative à

l'épuisement des voies de recours internes et que cette partie de sa requête doit être
rejetée, sur ce point, conformément à l'article 27 par. 3 de la Convenlion

Par ces motifs, la Commission, à la majorité,

DÉCLARE LA REQUÊTE IRRECEVABLE.

(TRANSLATION)

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Turkish national bom m 1966, has a bachelor's degree in

pharmacology and is résident m Bursa (Turkey)

The fdcts, as submitted by the parties, may be summansed as tollows

102
 The applicant, having completed her university studies at the faculty of
pharmacology in Ankara, asked the university registry for a provisional certificate
stating that she had obtained a bachelor's degree She supplied an identity photograph
which showed her weanng a headscarf In a letter dated 28 July 1988 the dean of the
faculty informed the applicant that he was refusing to issue the certificate m question,
as the identity photograph supplied by the applicant did not comply with die
university's disciplinary régulations or with the circular of 30 December 1982 issued
by the Higher Education Council He stated that he was prepared to issue the
certificate requested on condiuon that the applicant supplied an identity photograph
which complied with the régulations

On 19 September 1988 the applicant appealed to the Ankara Administrative

Court seeking annulment of the administrative décision of 28 July 1988 She alleged,
inter alla, an infnngement of her nght to freedom of religion and the freedom to
manifest her religion, as guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution and the Universal
Declaranon of Human Rights

In a judgment dated 9 March 1989 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed

die applicant's appieal on two grounds

Firstly, the court noted that Ruie 29 of Ankara University's régulations on degree
courses required an identity photograph taken in accordance with the university's ruies
on dress" to be affixed to the degree certificate Secondly, the court noted that the
circular issued on 30 December 1982 by the Higher Education Council on dress
requirements for university students required the laiter to wear clean, simple and
smartly ironed clothing, to wear nothing on their heads and to hâve tidily eut haïr In
the light of the provisions of the two sets of régulations menUoned, the court held that
the applicant was obliged to supply an identity photograph on which her dress complied
with the requirements descnbed above

Thirdly, die court noted Uiat on the identity photograph in question the applicant
was weanng a headscarf which framed her face in such a way that it concealed her
forehead, ears and lower jaw, and that as a resuit this photograph was not adéquate to
identify the student concemed

On 25 Apnl 1989 the applicant appealed agamst this judgment to the Council
of State She pleaded, inter alia, the inapplicability of the régulations relied on by the
Administrative Court when it dismissed her appeal, and further alleged a violation of
her nght to freedom of religion, as she had done before the court of first instance She
also claimed that her identity card, her passport and her dnving licence camed
photographs of her weanng a headscarf

The defence of the administrative authonty (Ankara Umversity) was based on

the provisions of the circular of 30 December 1982 prohibiting the weanng of die
Muslim headscarf in universities

103
 In a judgment dated 16 October 1989 the Council of State upheld, by a majonty,
the judgment of 9 March 1989 It held, in the light of its established case-law, that the
administrative décision impugned by the applicant was consistent with the university's
régulations on student dress

In ihe meantime, in a judgment given on 7 March 1989 and published in the

Officiai Journal on 5 July 1989, the ConsUtutional Court had declared unconstitutional
a légal provision authonsing the weanng of headscarves in higher éducation
establishments on the ground that the provision in question was contrary to the
pnnciple of seculanty enunciated m the Constitution

Two members of the Council of State expressed the view in iheir dissenting
opinion that the university's refusai was null and void because there was no régulation
which expressly indicated what form the photograph to be affixed to a degree certificate
should take

COMPLAINTS

Before the Commission the applicant complains of an infnngement of her nght

to freedom of thought, conscience and rehgion, conti"ary to Article 9 of the Convention,
in that for a penod of two years her degree certificate was withheld from her because
she had not supplied an identity photograph showing her bare-headed, when to appear
thus would hâve been incompatible with the manifestation of her religions beliefs

The applicant further complains of discnininanon by the administrative

authonlies between female students of foreign nationahty and those of Turkish
nationality She asserts that female foreign nationals hâve total freedom as to dress in
Turkish universities. whereas Turkish female students are subject to the restrictions
mentioned above which infnnge their freedom of religion In that connection she relies
on Article 14 of the ConvenUon

THE LAW

The applicant complains of an infnngement of her nght to freedom of religion

-ind conscience, given that the way she is required to dress for the idenuty photograph
to be affixed to her university degree ceruficate is conffary to her religious beliefs In
that connection she relies on Article 9 of the Convention

Under Article 9 para 1 of the Convention, everyone has "the nght to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion" This nght "includes freedom to change his
rehgion or belief and freedom, either alone or in commumty with otheis and in public
or in private, to manifest his religion or behef. m worship, leaching, practice and
observance

104
1. As to the exhaustion of domestic remédies
The respwndent Government first plead inadmissibility on the ground of failure
to exhaust domestic remédies. Their objection has four separate limbs.
FirsUy, tiiey observe that the applicant lodged her application with the
Commission before she had exhausted domestic remédies, to be précise on the same
date as the décision of the administrative court, which \ntA the case at first instance
(Ist limb of the objection).
The respondent Government further daim that the applicant, who contested in
the administrative courts the administrative décision refusing to issue her a degree
certificate, omitted to challenge the lawfulness of the circular of 30 December 1982 on
which the impugned administrative décision was based (2nd limb of Ihe objection).
The Government also assert that the applicant omitted to appeal against the
judgment of the Council of State. They maintain in this connection that such an
appeal, in which the appellant asks the Council of State to reconsider its final judgment,
and which may be brought without seeking leave, has become an "ordinary" remedy
in die practice of the courts (3rd limb of Ihe objection).
Lastly, the respondent Government maintain that the applicant omitted to invoke
in the Turkish courts Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, on which the complaints she
now lays before the Commission are based (4th limb of the objection).

The applicant rejects the arguments of the respondent Government and maintains
that she has exhausted domestic remédies.
She maintains that she argued in the Turkish courts that the administrative
décision rejecting her request and the circular on which diis décision was based were
neither provided for by law nor compatible with the Constitution (2nd limb of the
objection). The applicant also asserts that she appealed to the highest national
administrative court, namely the Council of State (3rd limb of die objection) and prayed
in aid before that court the right to freedom of religion and the principle of non-
discrimination, as set forth in the Constitution (4th limb of the objection).

The Commission has examined the submissions of the parties on the subject of
die exhaustion of domestic remédies and has reached the following conclusions.

With regard to the Ist limb of the Govemment's objection, the Commission
refers to its established case-law, upheld by the Court in its Ringeisen judgment:
"Thus, while it is fuUy upheld Ihat the applicant is, as a nile, in duty bound to
exercise the différent domestic remédies before he applies to the Commission,
it must be left open to the Commission to accept the fact that the last stage of
such remédies may be reached shortly after the lodging of the application but
before the Commission is called upon to pronounce itself on admissibihty"
(judgment of 16 July 1971, Séries A no. 13. p. 38, para. 91).

105
 The Commission recalls that it has previously held that it is not obliged to reject
a complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remédies on account of the fact that appeals
were still pending at the time when it was introduced (see, among other authonties,
Luberti v. lialy. Dec. 7 7 81, D R. 27 p. 181). Accordmgly, it considers diat dus limb
of the objection cannot be upheld.

With regard to the pwssibility of seeking the annulment of ihe circular of

30 December 1982 (2nd limb of the objection), the Commission observes that the
applicant invoked in the Turkish courts the provisions of the ConsUtution guaranteeing
freedom of religion and the principle of non discnminaUon. The Commission also
points out that the Turkish administrative courts can examine of iheir own motion the
lawfulness of an impugned administrative décision taken in an individual case,
separately from the issue of the lawfulness of the relevant administialive regulauons
The courts trying the applicant's case were therefore in a position to give a ruling as
to whether there had been a violation of the ConvenUon Consequentiy. the applicant
was not obliged to exercise other remédies, including that suggested by the Government
(cf , mutatis mutandis, Eur Court H R , Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Senes A
no 32, p. 12, para. 23, No 9697/82, Dec 7 10 83. DR. 34 p 131)

With regard to the appeal seeking reconsideration ofa judgment mentioned by

the Government (3rd limb of the objection), the Commission notes that in Turkish law
such an appeal involves asking the court which has given the impugned judgment to
reconsider its décision, on the ground that it has made a mistake Ln fact. the court
concemed must retry the case if the parties exercise their right to appeal, without there
being any fresh évidence

The Commission must assess in the light of each case whelher a particular
domesUc remedy seems to offer the applicant an effective means lo remedy the matier
of which he complains {cf. among other authonties. Nos 5577-5583/72, Dec 15 12 75.
DR 4 pp 4, 64) The applicant is not required to use a remedy ihat, according to "the
setlled légal opinion" which existed at the time, was not of such a nature as to sausfy
the complaints {Eur. Court H R., De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June
1971, Senes A no 12, p. 34, para. 62).

In ihis case, the Commission notes that in dismissing the applicant's appeal the
Council of State applied its established case-law to the effect that students must comply
with university régulations on dress. Consequentiy. it considers that in the
circumstances of this case an appeal seeking reconsiderauon of the judgment was not
an effective remedy for this tyf>e of complaint.

With regard to the possibility of invoking the provisions of the ConvenUon

before the Turkish courts (4th limb ofthe objection), the Commission refers to its well-
established case-law to the effect that domestic remédies are exhausted when, before
the highest national authonty, the applicant has raised in substance the complaint he
submits to the Commission, even without referring to the Convention {cf., among other
authorities. Nos 7299/75 and 7496/76. Dec 4 12 79, DR 18 p 5). U notes that in dus

106
case the applicant. by invoking the nght to freedom of religion and the principle of
non-discnmination, as guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution, satisfied the above
condition.

That being the case, the Commission takes the view that the objection raised by
the Government cannot be upheld It follows that the applicant has sausfied the
requirement conceming the exhaustion of domestic remédies, in accordance with
ArUcle 26 of the Convention.

2 As to the merits

The Government maintain m the first place that the refusai the applicant
complains of did not interfère with her freedom of religion and worship They consider
that a person is not prevented from practising her religion either by die fact that she
musl go bare-headed on university premises or by the fact that she must provide an
identity photograph which shows her bare-headed in order to comply with the
university's disciplinary régulations

Secondly, the respondent Government maintain that the obligation to respect the
principle of secularity imposed on university students must be held to be congruous
with the restrictions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention. They
observe that the Turkish Constitutional Court, in a judgment dated 7 March 1989.
declared unconstitutional a légal provision permilting the wearing of headscarves in
higher éducation establishments on the ground that this provision was contiary to the
principle of secularity It further held that the wearing of the Muslim headscarf could
ïead to daims that those women who do not wear headscarves are atheists, and thus
create social conflict

On the other hand, the applicant observes that, alihough she successfully
completed her university studies five years ago. she still cannot obtain her degree
certificate because she has not supplied an identity photograph on which she musl
appear bare-headed. She maintains that covering her head with a headscarf is one of
the observances and practices prescnbed by religion.

The applicant further maintains that the university's refusai to issue her with her
degree certificate constiiuted an interférence with her freedom of religion and belief
which could not be justified by respect for the principle of secularity. She draws a
distinction between the principle of seculanty and the question of dress She maintains
that seculanty is one of the political principles of Government policy. By weanng a
Muslim headscarf or turban an individual merely takes part in a rehgîous practice
which does not impinge on the secularity of the State

The Commission recalls thaï Article 9 of the Convention expressly protects

"worship, teaching, practice and observance" as manifestations of a religion or belief.

107
 The Commission has previously ruied that Article 9 of the ConvenUon does not
always guarantee the nght to behave in the public sphère in a way which is dictated by
such a behef In particular, the term "practice" as employed in Article 9 para 1 does
not cover each act which is motivated or influenced by a religion or belief (cf.
No. 7050/75, An-owsmith v the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 12.10.78, para 71,
DR. 19 p. 5, and No. 10358/83, Dec. 15.12.83, D.R 37 p. 142).

In order lo détermine whelher there has been a violation of ArUcle 9 in this case.
U musl first be ascertained whether the measure complained of constiiuted interférence
with ihe exercise of the freedom of religion.
The Commission observes ihal ihe rules applicable to the identity photographs
to be affixed to degree certificates, alihough they do not form part of the ordinary
disciplinary rules goveming the ddily life of the universities, do form part of the
university rules laid down with ihe aim of preserving the "republican", and hence
"secular", nature of the university, as the Turkish courts which gave judgment in tins
case held

The Commission takes the view that by choosing to pursue her higher éducation
in a secular university a student submits lo those university ruIe*;, which may make die
freedom of students to manifest their religion subject to restnctions as to place and
manner intended to ensure harmonious coexistence between students of différent
beliefs. Especially in countries where Ihe great majority of the populauon owe
allegiance to one parUcular religion, manifestaUon of the observances and symbols of
Ihat religion, without restncuon as lo place and manner, may constitute pressure on
students who do nol pracuse Ihat religion or those who adhère to anolher religion
Where secular universities hâve laid down dress régulations for students, they may
ensure that certain fundamentalist religious movements do not dislurb public order m
higher éducation or impinge on the beliefs of others

The Commission notes thaï in the présent case die university régulations on dress
require, mter alla, thaï students forbear from weanng headscarves The Commission
also takes into considération the observauons of the Turkish Constitutional Coun.
which has held thaï the aci of wearing a Muslim headscarf m Turkish universities may
constitute a challenge towards ihose who do not wear one
The Commission recalls Ihat il has held to be compauble with the freedom of
religion protected by Article 9 of die Convention the obligation requiring a teacher to
observe normal working hours where, as he claimed. thèse clashed with his allendance
atprayers (No. 8160/78. X v the United Kingdom. Dec 12381,DR 22 p 27). The
same applies to the obligauon requiring a molorcychçt to wear a crash helmel. which
he claimed was incompauble with his religious duues (No 7992/77, X v the Uniied
Kingdom, Dec 12.7.78, D R 14 p 234) Tbe Commission considers ihai a siudenl in
a secular university is imphciUy subject, by ihe naiure of things, to certain rules of
conducl laid down in order to ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of others. The
régulations of a secular university may also require that the degree certificates issued
to students do not reflect in any way Ihe identity of a movemenl owing allegiance to
a particular religion in which thèse students may take part

108
 The Commission also takes the view thaï a university degree ceruficate is
intended to cerufy a student's capacities for employment purposes, it is not a document
intended for the gênerai public The purpose of Ihe photograph affixed to a degree
ceruficate is to identify the person concemed. It cannot be used by that person tû
manifest his religious beliefs.

The Commission observes that in this case the administrative authorities and ihe
Turkish courts found Ihat the university régulations required the applicant to supply an
idenuiy photograph which complied with the régulations on dress. U further notes thaï
the university authorities' rejection of the applicant's request for her degree certificate
is not final but condiuonal. in so far as issue of the certificate is dépendent on
réalisation of the condition that the applicant produce an identity photograph which
compiles wiUi the régulations

The Commission also notes that the applicant has not claimed thaï during her
studies al the university she was obliged, against her will, to observe the regulauons on
dress

That being the case, the Commission considers, having regard to Ihe
requirements of a secular university System, that regulating students' dress and refusing
them administrauve services, such as the issue of a degree certificate, for as long as
they fait to comply with such régulations does not, as such, conslilule an interterence
with freedom of religion and conscience

The Commission accordingly finds no interférence with the nght guaranteed by

Article 9 para 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is
manifestly ill-founded wiihin the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of ihe Convenuon
As regards die apphcani's complaint of discrimination conceming dress in
Turkish universities between foreign female students and Turkish female students, the
Commission is not requu-ed to state ils opinion as to whether the facts alleged by Ihe
applicant disdose die appearance of a violation of that provision, since, under
Article 26 of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter "after ail
domestic remédies hâve been exhausted".

Thaï condition is not satisfied by Ihe mère fact diat the appHcani submitted her
case to the varions compétent courts. The complaint submitted lo the Commission
must also hâve been raised, ai least in substance, during the proceedings in question
In this connecuon the Commission refers to its constant case-law (cf, for example.
No. 5574/72, Dec. 21.3 75, D.R. 3 p. 10, al p 15; No 10307/83, Dec 6.3.84, D R. 37
p 113. atp 120)

ln this case the applicant did not raise during the proceedings before the Council
of Slale the précise complaint she now makes before the Commission Moreover.
examination of the case has nol revealed any particular circumstance which might hâve
absolved the applicant from the obligation to raise this complaint m the proceedings
menUoned.

109
 It follows that Ihe applicant has noi satisfied Ihe exhaustion of domestic remédies
requirement and that this part of her application must accordingly be rejecled, pursuant
to Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

For thèse reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

110